Did Josephus Refer to Jesus?

A Thorough Review of the Testimonium Flavianum
By Christopher Price

The most important extra-biblical references to Jesus are found in the
writings of Josephus. Although some have questioned the authenticity of the
passages, modern scholarship has rightly recognized that one of them is
completely authentic and the other, though embellished by Christian scribes,
provides an authentic core of material confirming much about Jesus. This article
thoroughly examines the authenticity of the disputed reference to Jesus, the
Testimonium Flavianum referred to hereafter as the "TF".

Contents

Introduction

Who Was Josephus?

Josephus ben Matthias is the best known ancient Jewish historian. He was born
in 37 CE, only a few years after Jesus' execution. Josephus was well educated in
biblical law and history. On his mother's side he was a descendent of the
Hasmonean Kings. On his father's side he came from a priestly family. Josephus
counted among his friends Agrippa II. His life took some dramatic turns in 66
CE, when the Jews in Palestine revolted against Roman rule. Although Josephus
was only 29 at the time, he was given command of the Jewish forces in Galilee.
His forces were no match for the Romans and were utterly defeated. Josephus
survived, however, and became an advisor to the Roman general Vespasian by
prophesying that the general would become the Roman Emperor. Not so amazingly,
in 69 CE Vespasian did become Emperor. As a result, Josephus' stock went up and
Vespasian returned to Rome to run the Empire. Vespasian's son, Titus, was given
the responsibility of completing the war against the Jews. Titus used Josephus
as an interpreter and spokesman to the Jewish forces in Jerusalem. Josephus was
berated by the Jews of Jerusalem after he repeatedly called on them to surrender
to the Roman forces. Eventually, in 70 CE, the Romans crushed the revolt and
destroyed Jerusalem.

Josephus returned with Titus to Rome, where he was awarded for his service
with a house and a pension. With time and resources, Josephus turned to writing
of history. In the 70s, he wrote Jewish Wars, which provided a chronicle
of the wars of the Jewish people. He thereafter in the 90s wrote a much broader
history of the Jewish people, Jewish Antiquities.

Two References to Jesus

Josephus' writings cover a number of figures familiar to Bible readers. He
discusses John the Baptist, James the brother of Jesus, Pontius Pilate, the
Sadducees, the Sanhedrin, the High Priests, and the Pharisees. As for Jesus,
there are two references to him in Antiquities. I will recount them in
the order in which they appear.

First, in a section in Book 18 dealing with various actions of Pilate, the
extant texts refer to Jesus and his ministry. This passage is known as the
Testimonium Flavianum referred to hereafter as the "TF".

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call
him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as
receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews,
and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the
suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross,
those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them
alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten
thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so
named from him are not extinct at this day.

Jewish Antiquities 18.3.3

Second, in Book 20 there is what could be called a passing reference to Jesus
in a paragraph describing the murder of Jesus' brother, James, at the hands of
Ananus, the High Priest.

But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was
of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the
Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already
shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a
good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road;
so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of
Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others,
and having accused them as lawbreakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.

Jewish Antiquities 20.9.1

The Testimonium Flavianum

It is not the purpose of this article to address the arguments of the few
commentators - mostly Jesus Mythologists - who doubt the authenticity of the
second reference. According to leading Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman, the
authenticity of this passage "has been almost universally acknowledged" by
scholars. (Feldman, "Josephus," Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3, pages
990-91). Instead, this article focuses on arguments regarding the partial
authenticity of the TF.

Although Josephus' reference to the martyrdom of James is universally
accepted by critical scholars, there has been more controversy over the fuller
reference to Jesus. The TF contains some obvious Christian glosses that no Jew
would have written; such as "he was the Christ" and "he appeared to them alive
again the third day."

A strong majority of scholars, however, have concluded that much of the TF is
authentic to Josephus. In his book Josephus and Modern Scholarship,
Professor Feldman reports that between 1937 to 1980, of 52 scholars reviewing
the subject, 39 found portions of the TF to be authentic. Peter Kirby's own
review of the literature, in an article discussing the TF in depth, shows that
the trend in modern scholarship has moved even more dramatically towards partial
authenticity: "In my own reading of thirteen books since 1980 that touch upon
the passage, ten out of thirteen argue the Testimonium to be partly genuine,
while the other three maintain it to be entirely spurious. Coincidentally, the
same three books also argue that Jesus did not exist." (Kirby, Testamonium
Flavianum, 2001). Though my own studies have revealed a similar trend
(about 15 to 1 for partial authenticity, with the exception being a Jesus
Mythologist), I do not believe that it is a coincidence that it is Jesus
Mythologists who are carrying the water against the partial authenticity theory.
Even the partial validity of this one passage is enough to sink their entire
argument.

Notably, the consensus for partial authenticity is held by scholars from
diverse perspectives. Liberal commentators such as Robert Funk, J. Dominic
Crossan, and A.N. Wilson, accept a substantial part of the TF as originally
Josephan. So do Jewish scholars, such as Geza Vermes, Louis H. Feldman, and Paul
Winter and secular scholars such as E.P. Sanders and Paula Fredrikson. Even Jeff
Lowder, co-founder of the Secular Web, recognizes the merits of the partial
authenticity theory. (Lowder,
Josh McDowell's Evidence for Jesus: Is it Reliable? 2000). Paula
Fredrikson sums up the state of the question among scholars: "Most scholars
currently incline to see the passage as basically authentic, with a few later
insertions by Christian scribes." (Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews,
page 249).

Those scholars who accept the "partial authenticity" theory conclude that -
at a minimum - something similar to the following reconstruction of the TF was
likely original to Book 18:

At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of
startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure. And
he gained a following among many Jews and among many of Gentile origin. And
when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us,
condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease
to do so. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians (named after him)
had not died out.

(per Meier, op. cit., page 61).

Arguments for Partial Authenticity of the
Testamonium

The strong majority opinion of scholars is not without justification. As
discussed below, there are many arguments of varying weight which support this
view.

1. An Authentic Core of Josephan Language and Style

Perhaps the most important factor leading most scholars to accept the
partial-authenticity position is that a substantial part of the TF reflects
Josephan language and style. Moreover, when the obvious Christian glosses --
which are rich in New Testament terms and language not found in the core -- are
removed or restored to their original the remaining core passage is coherent and
flows well.

We can be confident that there was a minimal reference to Jesus . . .
because once the clearly Christian sections are removed, the rest makes good
grammatical and historical sense. The peculiarly Christian words are
parenthetically connected to the narrative; hence they are grammatically free
and could easily have been inserted by a Christian. These sections also are
disruptive, and when they are removed the flow of thought is improved and
smoother.

(James H. Charlesworth, Jesus within Judaism, pages 93-94).

AlsoGraham Stanton states "Once the obviously Christian additions are
removed, the remaining comments are consistent with Josephus's vocabulary and
style." (Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus, page 143). The most recent
and comprehensive study of the TF was done by John P. Meier in A Marginal Jew,
Volume 1. As stated by Meier, "[m]any key words and phrases in the Testimonium
are either absent from the NT or are used there in an entirely different sense;
in contrast, almost every word in the core of the Testimonium is found elsewhere
in Josephus--in fact, most of the vocabulary turns out to be characteristic of
Josephus." (Meier, op. cit., page 63).

Below I break down the TF phrase by phrase to examine its linguistic
characteristics and style:

a. Now there was about this time, Jesus

The digression and introductory phrase are typical of Josephus. As noted by
Steve Mason, "[t]he opening phrase 'about this time' is characteristic of his
language in this part of Antiquities, where he is weaving together
distinct episodes into a coherent narrative (cf. Ant. 17.19; 18.39, 65,
80; 19.278)." (Mason, Josephus and the New Testament, page 171).
Additionally, the use of the simple name "Jesus" favours Josephan authorship. A
Christian would be more likely to use the term "Jesus Christ" or "Christ Jesus.
In all of Ignatius' seven authentic letters he refers to "Jesus Christ" 112
times, "Christ Jesus" 12 times, "Christ" 4 times, and "Jesus" only 3 times
(Robert Grant, The Apostolic Fathers, Vol. 4, page 7). Another example is
Polycarp. In his letter he ten times refers to "Jesus Christ" and never once to
"Jesus." Though certainly not determinative, this is suggestive and more
consistent with authorship by Josephus than a Christian interpolator.

b. A wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man,

Although the phrase "wise man" sounds positive, it almost certainly is not a
Christian addition. That it is followed by the obvious interpolation "if it be
lawful to call him a man" indicates that the interpolator found the description
of Jesus as a "wise man" to be woefully inadequate. So, he remedies this
insufficient estimate of Jesus by clarifying that there is good reason to doubt
he was just a man. "A Christian scribe would not deny that Jesus was a wise man,
but would feel that label insufficient for one who has believed to be God as
well as man." (Meier, op. cit., page 60). Mason adds: "As it stands, the
reticence to call Jesus a man seems like a rejoinder to the previous, already
flattering statement that he was a wise man. It seems more like a
qualification of an existing statement than part of a free creation." (Mason,
op. cit., page 171; See alsoFrance, op. cit., page 30: "Thus
the clause 'if indeed one should call him a man' makes good sense as a Christian
response to Josephus' description of Jesus as (merely) a 'wise man', but is
hardly the sort of language a Christian would have used if writing from
scratch.").

Furthermore, the phrase "wise man" is characteristically Josephan. And its
context and how Josephus uses it elsewhere are especially matched to its use in
the TF:

He uses the designation wise man sparingly, but as a term of considerable
praise. King Solomon was such a wise man (Ant. 8.53), and so was Daniel
(10.237). Interestingly, both men had what we might call occult
powersabilities to perform cures and interpret dreamsof the sort that Jesus
is credited with in the testimonium.

(Mason, op. cit., page 171).

Leading Jewish scholar Geza Vermes agrees that there is a connection between
the use of the term for Daniel and Solomon and the TF's description of Jesus:

Of these, Solomon and Daniel are the most obvious parallels to Jesus qua
wise men. Both were celebrated as masters of wisdom. Hence it is not
surprising to find the epithet 'teacher' follows closely the phrases under
consideration in the Testimonium.

Finally, an often overlooked argument about the use of "wise man" is that it
would have a "pejorative connotation" to Christians. In 1 Corinthians 1:24, 30,
the wisdom of man is put in a very negative light. In Matthew 11:25 and Luke
10:21, "the wise" are compared unfavourably to "babes." Indeed, such a term is
not used by Christians in their early literature to describe Jesus. Vermes,
op. cit., page 5. This adds yet more weight to the argument for partial
authenticity. As Vermes concludes, "no stylistic or historical argument" can be
"marshalled against the authenticity" of this phrase. (Ibid).

c. for he was a doer of wonderful works,

The term for "doer" here has been claimed not to be Josephan. But Professor
Meier is aware of this argument and offers an explanation:

[I]t is used elsewhere in Josephus only in the sense of "poet"; but
Josephus . . . has a fondness for resolving a simple verb into two words: a
noun expressing the agent and the auxiliary verb (e.g., krites einai for the
simple krinein). Moreover, Josephus uses such cognates as poieteos, 'that
which is to be done," poiesis, "doing, causing" (as well as "poetry, poem"),
and poietikos, 'that which causes something" (as well as "poetic").

(Meier, op. cit., page 81).

Furthermore, it is not all that unusual for ancient Greek authors to use
occasionally a word in an unusual way. The undisputed epistles of Paul have
their share not only of hapex legomena but also of Pauline words and
phrases that Paul uses in a given passage with an unusual meaning or
construction. Especially since Josephus is dealing in the Testimonium with
peculiar material, drawn perhaps from a special source, we need not be
surprised if his usage differs slightly at a few points.

(Meier, op. cit., page 83 (emphasis added)).

On balance therefore, there is nothing about this term that counts against
authenticity.

One the other hand, Mason confirms that the term "startling/incredible deeds"
(paradoxa) is Josephan: "Josephus often speaks of marvels and incredible
things in the same breath, as the testimonium does. He even uses the
phrase rendered incredible deeds in two other places, once of the prophet
Elisha (Ant. 9.182; cf. 12.63)." (Mason, op. cit., page 171). Yet
this term is nowhere used in the New Testament to describe Jesus' miracles. Nor
is it used in early Christian literature prior to its citation by Eusebius.

The reason Christians generally avoided this term is that it could just as
easily be interpreted in a neutral or even negative way, such as "controversial
deeds." Professor Van Voorst notes that the phrase "is ambiguous; it can also be
translated 'startling/controversial deeds.'" (Jesus Outside the New Testament,
page 78). Professor Vermes notes that "paradoxa" is not an unambiguous reference
to a Godly miracle. In fact, "students of Josephus seem to agree that the word
best expressing his notion of 'miracle' is" a different Greek term that Vermes
translates "sign." This is especially true when the issue concerns an
extraordinary deed achieved by a man of God (Vermes, op. cit., page 7).
Josephus does not use the unambiguous term, but uses "paradoxa." According to
Vermes, "paradoxa" is simply too neutral standing alone to be a positive
attestation. Though Josephus uses this term for Moses and Elisha, he goes out of
his way to explain that the deeds described there were from God.

The Jesus notice, though verbally closely related to the Elisha passage,
lacks a positive evaluation by Josephus. His is a fairly sympathetic but
ultimately detached description: he reports traditions concerning Jesus, but
he is personally not committed to them.

(Vermes, op. cit., page 8).

Such a neutral reference would be expected from Josephus, but not from any
Christian interested in inserting the interpolation in the first place.

d. a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure.

The phrase "receive the truth with pleasure" is characteristically Josephan.

In particular, Thackeray, the prince of Josephan scholars, who went so far
in his study of Josephus' language as to compose a lexicon to Josephus for his
own use so as to see how precisely each word is used in Josephus and whether
there is evidence of shifts of style in various parts of his works due to his
"assistants" or to other reasons, noted that the phrase 'such people as accept
the truth gladly' is characteristic of the scribe in this part of the
Antiquities, since the phrase appears eight times in books 17-19
(supposedly the work of the Thucydidean assistant) and nowhere else in
Josephus.

(Louis H. Feldman, "The Testimonium Flavianum, The State of the Question,"
Christological Perspectives, Eds. Robert F. Berkley and Sarah Edwards, page
188).

The concentration of the phrase "received the truth with pleasure" in these
three chapters serves as even stronger evidence for authenticity. Furthermore,
it is unlikely that a Christian would have used such a phrase to describe Jesus
or Christians. As Professor Feldman notes, "Christian interpolation is unlikely,
since the word in the New Testament and in early Christian writings had a
pejorative connotation." (Ibid). Van Voorst agrees, "because Christians
generally avoid a positive use of the word 'pleasure,' with its connotation of
'hedonism,' [] it is difficult to imagine a Christian scribe using it here about
Jesus' followers." (Van Voorst, op. cit., 90).

e. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles.

This statement probably could not have been written by a Christian because it
so obviously contradicts the portrait of Jesus' ministry in the Gospels. Indeed,
it directly contradicts several assertions made by the Gospel about Jesus and
Gentiles.

In the whole of John's Gospels, no one clearly designated a Gentile ever
interacts directly with Jesus; the very fact that Gentiles seek to speak to
Jesus is a sign to him that the hour of his passion, which alone makes a
universal mission possible, is at hand (John 12:20-26). In Matthew's Gospels,
where a few exceptions to the rule are allowed . . . we find a pointedly
programmatic saying in Jesus' mission charge to the Twelve: 'Go not to the
Gentiles, and do not enter a Samaritan city; rather, go only to the lost sheep
of the house of Israel" (Matthew 10:5-6). The few gentiles who do come into
contact with Jesus are not objects of Jesus' missionary outreach; they rather
come to him unbidden and humble, realizing they are out place. For Matthew,
they point forward to the universal mission, which begins only after Jesus'
death and resurrection (28:16-20). While Mark and Luke are not as explicit as
Matthew on this point, they basically follow the same pattern: during his
public ministry, Jesus does not undertake any formal mission to the Gentiles;
the few who come to him do so by way of exception.

Hence the implication of the Testimonium that Jesus equally won a large
following among both Jews and Gentiles simply contradicts the clear statements
about the Gospels. Unless we want to fantasize about a Christian interpolator
who is intent on inserting a summary of Jesus' ministry into Josephus and who
nevertheless wishes to contradict what the Gospels say about Jesus' ministry,
the obvious conclusion to draw is that the core of the Testimonium comes from
a nonChristian hand, namely, Josephus'. Understandably, Josephus simply
retrojected the situation of his own day, into the time of Jesus. Naive
retrojection is a common trait of Greco-Roman historians.

(Meier, op. cit., page 64-65).

Accordingly, this statement is much more likely to be authentic to Josephus
than a Christian invention. The notion that it served some apologetic purpose of
Eusebius, as argued by Olson and Kirby, is erroneous. As I suggest below,
Olson's theory of Eusebian interpolation is unpersuasive and his explanation of
Eusebius' use of TF for apologetic purposes is particularly misguided. Moreover,
it fails to account for Josephus' substantial influence on Eusebius. (See,
Eusebius, The History of the Church, ed. Andrew Louth, page 382).

f. He was the Christ,

This is clearly an interpolation using blatantly New Testament language about
Jesus. A Jew such as Josephus would not refer to Jesus as the Messiah. But, if a
Christian had written the entire TF, he would likely have placed this phrase
earlier in the passage. As Meier notes:

"He was the Messiah" seems out of place in its present position and
disturbs the flow of thought. If it were present at all, one would expect it
to occur immediately after either "Jesus" or "wise man," where the further
identification would make sense.

Meier, op. cit., page 60.

Some scholars have argued that this phrase originally was "he was thought to
be the Christ," but that the interpolator changed it because he could not let
such a statement stand. "And if ... Josephus had written 'he was the so-called
Christ' (ho legomenos Christos), it would have been natural for a
Christian reviser to leave out legomenos." (France, op. cit., page 30).
Although Meier disagrees, such a tentative phrase would actually make sense
after explaining the nature of Jesus' ministry. And it would especially make
sense as an explanation that Jesus had "gained a following both among Jews and
among many of Greek origin." So, while "he was the Christ" is obviously not
original to the text and is out of place, it is possible -- perhaps likely --
that the TF originally stated that "he was thought to be the Christ." Indeed,
based on the manuscript evidence, this reconstruction is likely.

g. and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had
condemned him to the cross,

The mention of Pilate is neutral, as it would be used by a Jewish historian
or a Christian familiar with the Gospel narratives. Thus, it does not favour
either theory.

The reference to "principal men" is very common in Josephus, but has no
counterpart in the Gospels or in any other early Christian literature. A
Christian would be much more likely to refer to "the Jews" or "the Sanhedrin",
or even the "Sadducees" and/or "Pharisees." Accordingly, it is typically and
uniquely Josephan. As for the phrase "among us," it is often used by Josephus
(Preface of Antiquities 1.3; Antiquities 10.2.2; 12.6.2; 14.10.1;
15.3.2; and 15.10.5).

Steve Mason has argued that the phrase "principal men among us" is unusual
because Josephus elsewhere only uses the phrase "principal men" to refer "of
Jerusalem" or "of the city." (Mason, op. cit., page 169). Yet this
provides little support for the total interpolation theory. As Mason himself
admits, "Josephus often speaks of the leading men among the Jews with the
phrase used in the testimonium, especially in book 18 of Antiquities
(17.81; 18.7, 99, 121, 376)." (Mason, op. cit., page 169). That this
phrase has a higher concentration of occurrences in Book 18 is credible evidence
that we have here a stylistic occurrence that attests to heavy influence of one
of Josephus' assistants, or at least a peculiar focus on the term by Josephus in
Book 18. Given the unusual focus on that phrase in this Book, it is not
surprising that it would find itself used in conjunction with the very common
Josephan phrase "among us." Notably, Mason does not find this usage as in any
way conclusive as evidence against partial authenticity. As he notes, "although
some of the language in the testimonium is odd, we have no linguistic
basis for dismissing the whole paragraph." (Mason, op. cit., page 170).
Indeed, Mason favors the partial interpolation theory (Ibid., page 171).

Finally, unlike the Gospels, this phrase simply notes that Jesus was
crucified at the instigation of some of the leading Jewish men. This bland
reference makes more sense for Josephus than it would for a Christian writer,
who would be more eager to describe how their motives in killing Jesus were
improper or at least unjustified.

h. those that loved him at the first did not forsake him;

Steve Mason argues that the phrase "they did not forsake" must be "be
completed by the translator, for it is left incomplete in the text; the action
which his followers ceased must be understood from the preceding phrase. This is
as peculiar in Greek as it is in English, and such a construction is not found
elsewhere in Josephus' writing." Mason, op. cit., page 169. Two other
scholars, however, note that this phrase is characteristic of Josephus.
Professor Van Voorst states that "'Those who had first loved him did not cease
[doing so]' is characteristically Josephan in style...." (Van Voorst, Op.
cit., page 90). Professor Yamuchi similarly notes that this phrase "conforms
to Josephus' characteristic style." (Edwin M. Yamuchi, "Jesus Outside the New
Testament" in Jesus Under Fire, Eds. Michael J. Wilkin and J.P. Moreland,
page 213).

Perhaps the reason that it appears to be "left incomplete in the text" is
because the text itself is deficient. Such omissions are common in the
Antiquities textual tradition. Citing a study by G.L. Richards in the
Journal of Theological Studies (xliii, page 70, 1941), F.F. Bruce notes, "[i]t
has also been pointed out that omission of words and short phrases is
characteristic of the textual tradition of the Antiquities . . . ."
(Bruce, The New Testament Documents, page 109). At present, therefore,
there seems to be insufficient reason to doubt that this passage is Josephan.

i. for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine
prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning
him.

This is a clear Christian confession, akin to the creedal "according to the
scriptures" of 1 Corinthians. 15:5. But at least part of it fits with Josephus'
style:

Although the phrase divine prophets sounds peculiar at first, there is a
close parallel in Josephus description of Isaiah (Antiquities. 10.35).
Even the word used for what the prophets announced is commonly used by
Josephus in conjunction with prophecy.

(Mason, op. cit., page 171).

So part of this phrase shows Josephan characteristics, but as presently
articulated has at least been altered by a Christian scribe. Perhaps the best
solution is the reconstruction proposed by Robert Eisler: "For it seemed to his
followers that having been dead for three days, he had appeared to them alive
again, as the divinely inspired prophets had foretold." (Eisler, The Messiah
Jesus and John the Baptist, page 61). By attributing the belief in
resurrection to his followers, rather than himself, Josephus would simply be
noting one of the main beliefs of the Christians.

j. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this
day.

Use of the phrase "the tribe of" has been recognized by many scholars as
being typical of Josephus. Even uniquely so. But Kirby relies on Steve Mason to
argue that this phrase is "peculiar":

Josephus uses the word "tribe" (phyle) eleven other times. Once it
denotes "gender," and once a "swarm" of locusts, but usually signifies
distinct people, races, or nationalities: the Jews are a "tribe" (War 3.354;
7.327) as are the Taurians (War 2.366) and Parthians (War 2.379). It is very
strange that Josephus should speak of the Christians as a distinct racial
group, since he has just said that Jesus was a Jew condemned by Jewish
leaders. (Notice, however, that some Christian authors of a later period came
to speak of Christianity as a "third race.").

(Mason, op. cit., pages 169-70).

As even Mason's own examples show, however, Josephus does not restrict his
usage of the phrase "the tribe of" to "distinct racial group[s]."
(emphasis added). Nor do I find it reasonable to argue that Josephus would have
thought of Christians simply as Jews. After all, though Jesus was a Jew, the TF
is quite clear that Christians were both Jews and Greeks. Thus, they were not
simply a Jewish sect in Josephus' eyes but a group that was distinct from the
Jews and the Greeks. Given that the phrase "tribe of" is used with diversity in
Josephus -- referring to a variety of groups, to females, and to locusts --
there is nothing unusual about its use here. Indeed, it is hard to take
seriously the notion that Josephus would have felt free to use the phrase "tribe
of" to describe bugs but not Christians. Thus, the phrase "tribe of" used by
Josephus to describe Christians should be seen as characteristically Josephan.

Furthermore, "calling Christians a 'tribe' would also be unusual for a
Christian scribe; a follower of a missionizing faith would be uncomfortable with
the more narrow, particularistic implications of this word." (Van Voorst, op.
cit., page 90). As Van Voorst notes, Eusebius -- whose writings were heavily
influenced by Josephus' -- was the first Christian to use such a term for
Christians. Accordingly, it is more reasonable to believe that Josephus applies
this term to Christians than it is to suspect an early Christian interpolator
invented it.

k. Summary of the Linguistic Evidence

Having reviewed each phrase in the TF, we are now in a position to evaluate
the evidence.

The following phrases are characteristic of Josephus:

(i) At this time there appeared;

(ii) a wise man;

(iii) startling deeds;

(iv) receive the truth with pleasure;

(v) leading men;

(vi) among us;

(vii) those who had loved him; and,

(viii) the tribe of.

The following phrases are obvious Christian glosses:

(i) if it be lawful to call him a man, and

(ii) He was the Christ. (However, the latter phrase was likely "he was
thought to be the Christ" or some rough equivalent).

Then there is a passage that contains obvious Christian sentiment and
characteristic Josephan language:

(i) for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets
had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.

In conclusion, a substantial amount of the TF is characteristically Josephus
and only a few phrases are obviously Christian. Moreover, many of the phrases
that are characteristically Josephan are absent from the New Testament and other
early Christian literature (such as "wise man" and "leading men"), and/or are
phrases or terms that Christians would likely have avoided using (such as
"startling deeds," and "received the truth with pleasure"). Add in a phrase that
any Christian scribe would have known was erroneous ("he gained a following
among many Jews and among many of Gentile origin") and a compelling case exists
that the core of the TF is authentic. Cementing the case is that the TF actually
is coherent and flows better without the obvious Christian glosses.

2. The Reference to James the Brother of Jesus Suggests and an Earlier
Reference to Jesus

The validity of Josephus' reference to James' Martyrdom increases the
likelihood that the TF is also valid. In Josephus' reference to James, he refers
to Jesus as "the so-called Christ" without further explanation. Because the
reference to Jesus is likely meant to specify which James Josephus was
discussing, it is probable that Josephus had already explained to his audience
the significance of Jesus the so-called Christ.

Josephus does not feel that he must stop to explain who this Jesus is; he
is presumed to be the known fixed point that helps locate James on the map.
None of this would make any sense to Josephus' audience, which is basically
Gentile, unless Josephus had previously introduced and explained something
about him.

(Meier, op. cit., page 62).

Jewish Scholar Paul Winter agrees:

If . . . Josephus referred to James as being 'the brother of Jesus who is
called Christ,' without much ado, we have to assume that in an earlier passage
he had already told his readers about Jesus himself.

(Paul Winter, "Josephus on Jesus and James," in History of
the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, ed. Emil Schurer, Edinburgh,
1973, page 432).

Mason states:

Within Josephus narrative, this phrasing is best explained by his wish to
recall his earlier reference to Jesus (Ant. 18.6364), thus: this man
was the brother of the one I mentioned before. It might also be that Josephus
means to indicate something of the accusations brought against James: just as
his brother was condemned by some Jewish leaders, so also James ran afoul of
Ananus. But if Josephus did not think James actions worthy of death, that
might support the view that the original form of the testimonium was
similarly mild.

(Mason, op. cit., page 173).

To the extent that readers accept the unanimous scholarly consensus for the
authenticity of the Book 20 reference, this argument adds considerable weight to
the partial-authenticity theory. However, other than that an earlier mention of
Jesus also mentioned Christians or Christ, it gives us little guidance as to its
content.

3. The Testimonium is Present in All Manuscripts

As Professor Meier notes, "the Testimonium is present in all the Greek
manuscripts and in all the numerous manuscripts of the Latin translation."
(Meier, op. cit., page 62). There are 42 extant Greek manuscripts and 171
Latin manuscripts. Perhaps significant is that the Latin translation was created
in the Sixth Century. (See Louis H. Feldman, "Josephus: Interpretative Methods
and Tendencies," in Dictionary of New Testament Background, page 591).
The probative value of this is not great, however, because all of the Greek
manuscripts date no earlier than the 10th or 11th centuries, though some of the
Latin manuscripts date back as early as the 9th century. But, a study of the
references to the TF by Christian writers demonstrates that multiple manuscript
traditions by the time Eusebius refer to the TF. This at least moves back the
existence of the TF in different manuscript traditions to around the third
century. Because all of these references contain some tampering, however, this
manuscript evidence does not lend direct support to the partial-authenticity
theory.

4. No Connection with John the Baptist

Josephus fails to make any connection between John the Baptist -- who he
discusses at length -- and Jesus. In the minds of early and later Christians,
this would have been inconceivable. The temptation to modify or link Jesus to
John the Baptist in Josephus' Antiquities would have been irresistible.

A final curiousity encompasses not the Testimonium taken by itself but the
relation of the Testimonium to the longer narrative about John the Baptist in
Antiquities 18.5.2 116-19, a text accepted as authentic by almost all
scholars. The two passages are in no way related to each other in Josephus.
The earlier, shorter passage about Jesus is placed in the context of Pontius
Pilate's governorship of Judea; the later, longer, passage about John is
placed in a context dealing with Herod Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee/Perea.
Separated by time, space, and placement in Book 18, Jesus and the Baptist (in
that order!) have absolutely nothing to do with each other in the mind and
narrative of Josephus. Such a presentation totally contradicts - indeed, it is
the direct opposite of the NT portrait of the Baptist, who is always treated
briefly as the forerunner of the main character of Jesus. Viewed as a whole,
the treatment of Jesus and John in Book 18 of The Antiquities is simply
inconceivable as the work of a Christian of any period.

(Meier, op. cit., page 66).

This argument standing alone may be insufficient, but it does add substantial
weight to the partial-authenticity theory.

There is persuasive evidence that earlier Antiquities manuscripts
lacked the phrases "he was the Christ" and "if indeed it is right to call him a
man."

First, Ambrose (or Pseudo-Hegesippus) -- despite using the TF as a polemic
for the divinity of Christ -- never notes that Josephus called Jesus "the
Christ." Writing around 30 or so years after Eusebius, he quotes from the TF:

The Jews themselves also bear witness to Christ, as appears by Josephus,
the writer of their history, who says thus: 'That there was at that time a
wise man, if (says he) it be lawful to have him called a man, a doer of
wonderful works, who appeared to his disciples after the third day from his
death, alive again according to the writings of the prophets, who foretold
these and innumerable other miraculous events concerning him: from whom began
the congregation of Christians, yet he was no believer, because of the
hardness of his heart and his prejudicial intention. However, it was no
prejudice to the truth that he was not a believer, but this adds more weight
to his testimony, that while he was an unbeliever and unwilling, this should
be true, he has not denied it to be so.

Ambrose has cited from the TF every positive statement about Jesus to use in
his argument that Jesus was divine. He notes that Jesus was wise, recites the
"if it is lawful" reference, notes that he did "wonderful works," and records
that he "appeared to his disciples" and that he did many other miraculous
things. However, Ambrose completely fails to note that Josephus claimed that
Jesus was the Christ. In fact, he seems to understand that Josephus was clearly
an unbeliever. It is very unlikely that Ambrose would have ignored such a strong
attestation of Jesus -- if it existed in his manuscript. Clearly, his manuscript
did not contain that phrase (though it is possible that he would leave out a
statement that "he was called the Christ" because it implied disbelief).
Therefore, this citation of the TF strongly suggests that within 30 years of
Eusebius' writings, there existed a Greek manuscript tradition of Antiquities
that omitted the phrase "he was the Christ."

Second, Jerome -- writing at the end of the Fourth Century -- also cites the
TF and explicitly differs from Eusebius' version by noting that Josephus merely
stated that Jesus was "called the Christ."

Josephus in the 18th book of Antiquities, most expressly acknowledges that
Christ was slain by the Pharisees, on account of the greatness of his
miracles.... Now he wrote concerning our Lord after this manner: "At the same
time there was Jesus, a wise man, if yet it be lawful to call him a man; for
he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of those who willingly receive the
truth. He had many followers both of the Jews and of the Gentiles -- he was
believed to be the Christ. And when by the envy of our principal men, Pilate
had condemned him to the cross, yet notwithstanding those who had loved him at
first persevered, for he appeared to them alive on the third day, as the
oracles of the prophets had foretold many of these and other wonderful things
concerning him: and the sect of Christians so named from him are not extinct
to this day.

As with Ambrose, Jerome's manuscript was different than the one used by
Eusebius in that it lacked the definitive statement "he was the Christ." As
Alice Whealey notes, "the fact that the passage is quoted by Jerome in a
slightly variant form in this period, which reads, 'he was believed to be the
Christ' rather than the textus receptus' 'he was the Christ' is not proof of
Jerome's own doubts about its authenticity, as is occasionally alleged. Rather,
it is evidence that in addition to the textus receptus a variant version of the
Testimonium in Greek was still in circulation in late antiquity." (The
Testimonium Flavianum Controversy from Antiquity to the Present, 2000 SBL
Josephus Seminar). Louis Feldman agrees:

An examination of the citation shows that though he is clearly quoting,
Jerome says that Jesus credebatur esse Christus. Hence his text said
not that Jesus was the Messiah, but that he was believed to be a Messiah. This
would fit the statement, noted above of Origen, to whom Jerome was so
indebted, that Josephus did not admit Jesus to be the Christ.

(Feldman, op. cit., page 184).

Third, there is a Syriac version of the TF that is referenced in the 12th
century work, compiled by the Patriarch of Antioch, Michael the Syrian, which
lends even more support to Jerome's version of the TF. While tracking our
current TF more or less, the Syriac version departs from it by stating that "he
was believed to be the Christ" rather than "he was the Christ." And as Whealey
notes, "Latin and Syriac writers did not read each others' works in late
antiquity. Both, however, had access to Greek works. The only plausible
conclusion is that Jerome and some Syriac Christian (probably the seventh
century James of Edessa) both had access to a Greek version of the Testimonium
containing the passage 'he was believed to be the Christ' rather than 'he was
the Christ.'" (Whealey, op. cit. at 10, n. 9).

Finally, an Arabic version of the Testimonium recounted in the Tenth Century
work, "Book of the Title." The author was Agapius, a Christian Arab and Melkite
bishop of Hierapolis. His recitation of the TF did not come to light until 1971.
It is translated thus:

At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was
good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and
the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified
and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his
discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them after his crucifixion
and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom
the prophets have recounted wonders.

This version lacks some of the obvious Christian interpolations, such as "he
was the Messiah" and "if he can be called a man," though apparently adds glosses
such as "and his conduct was good," and "he was known to be virtuous." James
Charlesworth, a leading New Testament scholar at Princeton, states that this
Arabic version "provides textual justification for excising the Christian
passages and demonstrating that Josephus probably discussed Jesus in
Antiquities 18." (James Charlesworth, "Research on the Historical Jesus
Today: Jesus and the Pseudigrapha, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Nag Hammadi
Codices, Josephus, and Archeology," Princeton Seminary Bulletin, vol. Vi,
page 110).

This version provides additional evidence that "he was the Messiah" was not a
part of earlier Antiquities manuscripts, but also indicates that "if he
can be called a man" was not in some manuscripts. Furthermore, this is the only
citation of the TF that I have found which is equivocal about the resurrection,
noting only that "they reported" that Jesus appeared alive. I am sceptical that
any Christian would intentionally soften the attestation to Christianity's most
important miracle. The better explanation is that the author was relying on a
manuscript that claimed only that Jesus' followers claimed he was resurrected.
Though I am sceptical of claims that this Arabic version is the authentic TF, it
provides reason to believe that the most prominent Christian glosses were not a
part of earlier manuscripts.

In summary, the manuscript evidence shows that at least one of the blatant
Christian interpolations ("he was the Christ") was not a part of earlier
versions of the TF. This alone adds weight to the partial authenticity theory
because it shows that earlier versions were even more Josephan than our present
one. But there is also evidence that other blatant Christian interpolations may
have been absent from the earliest form of the TF. All told, this shows that the
linguistic evidence assessed above is probably tilted against partial
authenticity because it counts Christian additions we now know were likely not
present in the TF's earlier forms. Thus, the manuscript evidence assessed here
enhances the already strong linguistic arguments for Josephan authorship of the
core of the TF.

6. There is No Christian Track Record of Such Whole Cloth Invention

Kirby quotes Mason as arguing that an interpolation is unlikely because "[t]o
have created the testimonium out of whole cloth would be an act of unparalleled
scribal audacity." (Mason, op. cit., page 171). Kirby dismisses Mason's
argument by noting that a Christian interpolator did invent references to Jesus
out of whole cloth in the Slavonic Josephus. I do not believe, however, that
Kirby's presentation does Mason's argument justice. Here is Mason's complete
argument:

They have noted that, in general, Christian copyists were quite
conservative in transmitting texts. Nowhere else in all of Josephus
voluminous writings is there strong suspicion of scribal tampering. Christian
copyists also transmitted the works of Philo, who said many things that might
be elaborated in a Christian direction, but there is no evidence that in
hundreds of years of transmission, the scribes inserted their own remarks into
Philos text. To be sure, many of the pseudepigrapha that exist now only in
Christian form are thought to stem from Jewish originals, but in this instance
it may reflect the thorough Christian rewriting of Jewish models, rather than
scribal insertions. That discussion is ongoing among scholars. But in the
cases of Philo and Josephus, whose writings are preserved in their original
language and form, one is hard pressed to find a single example of serious
scribal alteration. To have created the testimonium out of whole cloth
would be an act of unparalleled scribal audacity.

(Mason, op. cit., page 171).

Because the Slavonic Josephus was likely created almost a thousand years
after Eusebius' first mentions the TF -- and is found in none of the Latin or
Greek manuscripts of Josephus -- Mason's point stands. Indeed, that Kirby can
only point to one example that occurred hundreds of years later and never found
acceptance in other manuscript traditions adds credibility to Mason's argument.
Though this argument does not demonstrate partial authenticity standing alone,
it strikes a sober note of caution against assuming that any tampering means
wholesale invention.

Objections to the Authenticity of the Reconstructed
Testamonium Flavianum

Although the partial authenticity theory has persuaded the majority of
scholars, it has been criticized. I discuss the leading objections below:

1. The Burden of Proof

Some have argued that because most parties agree that there was some
tampering with the text, the entire TF should be presumed an interpolation.
While I agree that evidence of some tampering mitigates the usual strong
presumption that the text found in all the manuscripts is original, to presume
it is unauthentic as a result takes us beyond the evidence and should therefore
be rejected. If the evidence only demonstrates tampering of part of a text, that
is all the evidence can show. This is especially true where, as here, the
corrupt text is easily severable. This means that if the remaining text is
coherent and can stand on its own without the corrupt portions of the text,
there is no reason to go beyond the evidence. Indeed, one of the more persuasive
arguments for the partial authenticity theory is that the text is not only
coherent without the corrupted portion, but flows better and makes more sense
without the obvious glosses. Additionally, Mason's point above about the lack of
a track record of such complete interpolations should give added caution to such
a drastic shift in the burden of proof. Thus, this "objection" is more
question-begging than analysis. Accordingly, it seems best to review all of the
evidence and see which theory is supported by a preponderance of it.

2. The TF is "Unusually Short" for Josephus

This argument asserts that the passage in Josephus is "unusually short" to
match Josephan style. Of course, the chapter and section headings are not
original to the text. Nor have I seen a discussion of how such a determination
was made. So, I have some scepticism that this conclusion has been strongly
supported. In any event, if the characterization of the passage as unusually
short is true, it seems less likely to have been added by a Christian. Such an
interpolator would have a lot to say. A Christian who was creating out of whole
clothe a reference to Jesus would be describing the man he believed to be the
most important figure in all human history and an incarnation of God. Although
such a short description might be unusual for a Christian, it would be perfectly
understandable for a Jew like Josephus.

The results of a Christian's strong motive to characterize Jesus so highly
can be seen by examining what all agree was a complete interpolation by a
Christian scribe: the Slavonic Josephus. The Slavonic Josephus was written in
Old Russian. The main addition referring to Jesus is over 400+ words long and
adds many more details about Jesus activities. Thus, "his nature and form were
human, but his appearance was superhuman and his works divine," "in many
respects he opposed the Law and he did not keep the Sabbath according to the
custom of our forefathers," "a hundred and fifty assistants joined him, and a
multitude of the populace," and that Pilate released Jesus "because he had
healed his wife when she was dying." (Inserted after Jewish Wars 2.9.2,
169). There were other additions: "[the temple curtain] had . . . been suddenly
rent when they delivered to death through bribery the doer of good," "they had
put guards all around his grave‑‑thirty Romans but a thousand Jews" (Jewish
Wars 5.5.4, 214), and a reference to the writing placed on Jesus' cross
identifying him as "Jesus, a king who did not reign . . . ." (Jewish Wars
5.5.2, 195).

Given the Christian perspective on Jesus' importance (whether in the
thirteenth or the third century), this is unsurprising. On the other hand, if
the partial authenticity theory's reconstruction is valid, it's length is
consistent with what may be Josephus' view of Jesus - a rather neutral account
about a religious leader who appeared, may have been unjustly killed, and left
behind a movement known to Josephus' readers.

Against this conclusion I have seen it argued that a Christian scribe may not
have known how much space he had to work with while adding the TF. This
arguments is not well taken. I am sceptical that any scribes would have let this
prevent them from adding a few more lines about Jesus. Even if he had to
"slight" some of the many passages that Christians would have found completely
irrelevant, there would have been little problem in adding a few more comments
about God incarnate. I am sceptical of an argument that postulates that concerns
over the length of the scroll would allow an interpolator to add 130 words about
Jesus Christ, but not 30 or 50 more. This was certainly no barrier to the
Slavonic Josephus.

3. The Lack of a Reference to Jesus in Josephus' Former Work--Wars

Some, including Earl Doherty, have argued that Josephus' failure to mention
Jesus in his prior work of Jewish Wars evidences that he failed to do so
in Antiquities. This argument adds nothing to the case against partial
authenticity. These two works, though sharing the same author, are very
different in scope and breadth. It actually would have been surprising if
Josephus had mentioned Jesus in Jewish Wars.

As Professor R.T. France states:

His Jewish Wars, written shortly after the event, and based to a
large extent on his own experience, begins with a sketch of Jewish history
from the Maccabaean period, before focusing for the bulk of its seven books on
the events of the years AD 66‑73. This is not, therefore, such a likely place
to look for references to Jesus . . . . But Josephus' Antiquities of
the Jews is a more ambitious if less carefully researched work, covering the
whole period from the creation to AD 66, and devoting no less than six of its
twenty books to the century from the reign of Herod the Great to AD 66.

(France, The Evidence for Jesus, page 25)

Furthermore, because the Antiquities passages discussing John the
Baptist and James are more lengthy than the TF, but are absent from Wars,
it is not surprising that the TF would likewise be absent. Additionally, there
are other events mentioned in the New Testament and Antiquities that were
not mentioned in Jewish Wars, such as the Famine during the days of
Claudius and the account of the sudden death of Herod Agrippa I.

In an attempt to save this argument, Doherty argues that because the two
references to Pilate preceding the TF in Antiquities were mentioned in
Jewish Wars we would expect the TF to be included as well. See Earl
Doherty, The Jesus Puzzle, page 222. This argument is overly simplistic.
Jewish Wars is largely about the war that resulted in the destruction of
Jerusalem 70 CE. The two references to Pilate that precede the TF in
Antiquities were relevant to the war because they contributed to the Jewish
uprising that lead to the war. Nothing about the death of Jesus, however, would
have been seen by Josephus as contributing to the war (Jewish and Roman leaders
were involved in his death). Proving this point is that the two passages in
Chapter 18 that follow the TF in Antiquities are similarly irrelevant to
the Jewish uprising and also not to be found in Jewish Wars. Simply put,
the TF and the two following passages were not relevant to the Jewish Wars,
but they were relevant to a comprehensive history of the Jewish people.

4. The TF is Similar to the Reference to John the Baptist

In his list of arguments against authenticity, Kirby cites to R. Joseph
Hoffmann's comment that "the language used to describe John is very close to the
language used to describe Jesus, leading some to theorize that the original
version of the Antiquities carried no reference to Jesus at all."

This appears to be a non-sequitur. Even if true, why would it prove that the
TF is a complete interpolation? Why would a Christian interpolator set out to
describe Jesus in a similar way as John the Baptist? It is more likely that
someone like Josephus would have seen Jesus and John as similar types of figures
deserving similar descriptions. They gathered disciples and were popular with
the people. Despite their popularity, they lead no revolt, but were executed
anyway.

It seems more likely that the similar tone about John and Jesus supports the
"neutral" reconstruction of the TF:

Josephus' report on John is also a descriptive treatment of a popular
religious movement with political implications. Josephus depicts John as a
good man who attracted large crowds by his teaching, as Jesus did. John, like
Jesus, leads a reform movement within Judaism. Also, both leaders are killed
unjustly, John on the suspicion that he might lead a popular revolt against
Herod. Differences also exist, of course. John did not work miracles, the
Romans are not involved [although there client King is], and Josephus does not
indicate that his movement continues. Nevertheless, that Josephus can write
sympathetically about a controversial figure like John the Baptizer indicates
that he could write a neutral description about Jesus as well.

(Van Voorst op.cit., page 98).

5. The TF Does not Fit the Context of The Surrounding Passages

It has often been argued that the TF does not fit well within the context of
Chapter 18. This objection is unpersuasive. It appears that the narrative about
Jesus fits in here better than anywhere else. Expecting a small digression such
as the TF to fit its context exactly appears counterintuitive. Digressions,
especially unimportant ones, by definition are not good fits within the context
of the overall discussion.

Meier responds:

In the present case, one wonders whether any greater link need exist for
Josephus than the fact that the account of Jesus (who is crucified by Pilate)
is preceded by a story about Pilate in which many Jews are killed (Ant.
18.3.2, 60‑62) and is followed by a story in which the tricksters are punished
by crucifixion.

(Meier, op. cit., page 86).

Even Jeffrey Lowder, co-founder of the Secular Web, could "see no reason to
believe the Testimonium occurs out of context." Even if it could be said to be
out of context, Lowder remarks "that would still not make it likely that the
passage is an interpolation. It was common for ancient writers to insert
extraneous texts or passages which seemingly interrupt the flow of the narrative
(whereas today the material would be placed in a footnote)." (Lowder,
Josh McDowell's Evidence for Jesus: Is it Reliable? 2000).

Kirby attempts to salvage this objection by arguing that "the real difficulty
is the way that Josephus begins the subsequent paragraph with a reference to
'another outrage,' a reference that skips over the Testimonium entirely and
points to the previous section." But this argument fails to give due
consideration to the digressive nature of Josephus' writings in general and the
TF in particular. As Meier quotes Thackery, "Josephus was a patchwork writer."
(Meier, Op. cit., page 86, fn. 54). Furthermore:

We have emphasized another aspect of Josephus' work: his inveterate
sloppiness. Texts suitable for tendentious revision as well as passages which
contradict his motives are sometimes left untouched. The narrative is
frequently confused, obscure, and contradictory.

(Shaye J.D. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome, page 233).

Nor should we think it strange for any writer to refer back past what Lowder
describes as a footnote. Given the digressive nature of the TF and the
"inveterate sloppiness" of Josephus, requiring the literary precision Kirby
demands is unjustified. This argument adds little of value to the discussion.

6. Does the Tenor "ring true" for Josephus?

Doherty argues that "the entire tenor of such an 'original' does not ring
true for Josephus. In the case of every other would-be messiah or popular leader
opposed to or executed by the Romans, he has nothing but evil to say." (Doherty,
op. cit., page 210-11). As pointed out above, Josephus has no problem
describing John the Baptist in neutral-to-moderately favourable terms. Yet John
the Baptist was put to death by the Rome-appointed-ruler Herod. That Josephus
would have seen Jesus in similar terms, though apparently unrelated in ministry,
is not at all unlikely.

But Doherty continues:

To judge by the Christians' own record in the Gospels and even some of the
epistles, 'the tribe of Christians' toward the end of the first century was
still a strongly apocalyptic one. It expected the overthrow of the empire and
established authority, along with the transformation of the world into God's
kingdom. What would have led Josephus to divorce this prevailing Christian
outlook - for which he would have felt nothing but revulsion - from his
judgment of the movement's founder?

(Doherty, op. cit., page 212).

There are a number of loaded terms in this argument. Doherty offers no
discussion about Christianity's supposed "strongly apocalyptic" nature. Nor does
he show what that term might suggest to early Christians, much less to the
Romans. While I have little doubt that first century Christians expected the
return of Christ, characterizing this as the "overthrow of the empire" is
misleading. Indeed, Paul, who no doubt thought that the soon return of Jesus
might be imminent, advises Christians to respect their Roman authorities:

Every person is to be in
subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from
God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists
authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will
receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for
good behaviour, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do
what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of
God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not
bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings
wrath on the one who practices evil.

Romans 13:1-4.

Additional evidence of this can be gleaned from Acts, which highlights Paul's
Roman citizenship and occasionally shows Roman officials as sympathetic to
Paul's message (Acts 13:12). Not the stuff of a hardcore political movement. So,
whatever form Christian apocalyptic thought took, it could make room for being
good Roman citizens.

Furthermore, Doherty's argument does not take into account what the Romans
thought of Christians. Even if Doherty was right in how he describes Christian
attitudes, they would be irrelevant unless known to the Romans. Yet he provides
no evidence that such suspicions were imminent in Roman minds near the time
Josephus wrote Antiquities. Even Romans who wrote a decade or two later,
though obviously having low opinions of Christians, do not speak of them as a
revolutionary threat. Tacitus, refers to Nero's persecuting the Christian
following his blaming them for the great fires in Rome. Though Tacitus clearly
dislikes Christians, he notes that public sympathy was aroused by the
persecution ("there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed,
for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being
destroyed"). Tacitus disliked Christian because of their "mischievous
superstition," not because of any overtly anti-Roman expressions or activities.

Even more relevant to our question are the references Pliny the Younger makes
to Christians. Pliny wrote to Emperor Trajan to submit his treatment of
Christians for review. He undertook to learn what "crimes" the Christians were
committing:

They asserted, however, that
the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were
accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to
Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not
to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to
return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their
custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food - but ordinary and
innocent food. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict
by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political
associations. Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what
the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses.
But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition.

Pliny, Letters 10:96

Pliny had no information that the Christians were engaged in or espousing the
overthrow of the Roman Empire. He hardly would have omitted such suspicions in
his letter to the Emperor. When Emperor Trajan responded, he approved Pliny's
treatment of Christians, but commanded that "[t]hey are not to be sought out."
If the Romans had any suspicions that Christians were advocating -- or even just
preaching about -- the overthrow of the Roman Empire, such a command is
incomprehensible.

Finally, Doherty argues that Josephus would not have portrayed Jesus in a
neutral or semi-positive light given that Pilate had him executed. "Regardless
of what he may have thought about the character of Pilate, if Pilate had
executed Jesus, then there had to bein official Roman and Flavian eyesa
justification for doing so." This is not very convincing. Despite Doherty's
argument about Josephus writing a pro-Roman history, he has no problem
criticizing Pilate. In fact, "Josephus's descriptions of the governor are quite
negative." (Paul Barnett, Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity, page
145). In Jewish Wars, Josephus singles Pilate out for negative treatment
and as being at least partially responsible for escalating tensions between the
Jews and Romans. He gets much the same treatment in Antiquities. Indeed,
Josephus appears to lay part of the blame for the war on Pilate's provocation of
the Jews by, among other things his decision to move a Roman army into Jerusalem
to "overturn the laws of the Jews," (Antiquities 18.55), and seizing the
sacred treasury of the Temple to build an aqueduct in Jerusalem (Antiquities
18:60-62). Indeed, Rome recalled Pilate as a failure of a leader because of his
slaughter of a large group of peaceful Samaritans.

But when this tumult was
appeased, the Samaritan senate sent an embassy to Vitellius, a man that had
been consul, and who was now president of Syria, and accused Pilate of the
murder of those that were killed; for that they did not go to Tirathaba in
order to revolt from the Romans, but to escape the violence of Pilate. So
Vitellius sent Marcellus, a friend of his, to take care of the affairs of
Judea, and ordered Pilate to go to Rome, to answer before the emperor to the
accusations of the Jews.

(Jewish Antiquities 18.85-89).

Josephus obviously thinks Pilate acted wrongly in moving troops into
Jerusalem, overturning Jewish laws, bringing effigies of the Emperor into the
city, seizing money from the treasury, and slaughtering the Samaritans. Josephus
closes out the scene by having Pilate recalled in disgrace and never mentions
him again. Accordingly, the notion that Josephus would have been reluctant to
have Pilate act without justification or even in the wrong -- if Josephus means
to imply any such thing -- is misplaced.

7. The Phrase "the tribe of Christians so named from him" Requires the
Earlier Phrase "He was the Christ."

Some have argued that the partial reconstruction is untenable because without
the phrase "He was the Christ" the statement "the tribe of Christians so named
from him" is incomprehensible. In defense of his reconstruction, Meier has
commented:

But as Andre Pelletier
points out, a study of the style of Josephus and other writers of his time
shows that the presence of 'Christ' is not demanded by the final statement
about Christians being 'named after him.' At times both Josephus and other
Greco‑Roman writers (e.g., Dio Cassius) consider it pedantry to mention
explicitly the person after whom some other person or place is named; it would
be considered an insult to the knowledge and culture of the reader to spell
out a connection that is taken for granted.

(Meier, op. cit., page 61).

Additionally, considering that Josephus was writing in Rome after 90 CE, it's
likely that his audience would be at least familiar with "the tribe of
Christians" and their founder, Christ.

Christianity was well known by that time in Rome and Jerusalem. In fact,
there was already a relatively large community of Christians in Rome itself that
had been founded 40‑50 years earlier. They gained notoriety -- and even public
sympathy -- as a result of Nero's persecution of Christians in the 60s CE. And
two Roman officials writing about 10 years or so after Josephus wrote
Antiquities knew quite well that Christianity was founded by Christ.

To dispel the rumour, Nero
substituted as culprits, and treated with the most extreme punishments, some
people, popularly known as Christians, whose disgraceful activities were
notorious. The originator of that name, Christus, had been executed when
Tiberius was emperor by order of the procurator Pontius Pilatus. But the
deadly cult, though checked for a time, was now breaking out again not only in
Judaea, the birthplace of this evil, but even throughout Rome, where all the
nasty and disgusting ideas horn all over the world pour in and find a ready
following.

Tacitus, Annals XV: 44

Pliny too makes it clear he was aware that Christians derived from "Christ":

I decided to dismiss any who
denied that they are or ever have been Christians when they repeated after me
a formula invoking the gods and made offerings of wine and incense to your
image, which I had ordered to be brought with the images of the gods into
court for this reason, and when they reviled Christ.... They had met
regularly before dawn on a determined day, and sung antiphonally a hymn to
Christ as if to a God....

Pliny, Letters 10:96

Given that Roman officials writing within about 10-20 years after
Antiquities knew that Christians were named for their founder, it seems
likely that Josephus' audience would have known of this fact without having it
spelled out. Or, Josephus could have reasonably expected his readers to
understand that fact by the way he wrote the TF.

Yet this sentence is still
intelligible if an earlier statement about Jesus as (supposed) Messiah is
omitted, because that Jesus is named Christ can be inferred from "the tribe of
Christians named after him." This economic style of expression, which we saw
above in Tacitus, is perfectly intelligible as it stands. In this stylish and
astute way, Josephus can tell his readers that Jesus' followers are called
Christians, and he can identify Jesus as the Christ without explicitly calling
him this.

(Van Voorst, op. cit., page 96)

In any event, as discussed above, it is likely that the original TF did refer
to Jesus as the "so-called" Christ, just as the passage in Ant. 20. This defeats
the objection and creates no irresolvable problems.

8. A Table of Contents Without A Reference to the TF

Kirby cites to Louis H. Feldman's comment:

The fact that an ancient
table of contents, already referred to in the Latin version of the fifth or
sixth century, omits mention of the Testimonium (though, admittedly, it is
selective, one must find it hard to believe that such a remarkable passage
would be omitted by anyone, let alone by a Christian, summarizing the work) is
further indication that there was no such notice . . . .

(Feldman, Judaism and Christianity, page 57).

Peter Kirby regards this as "an important and powerful piece of evidence,
although one that doesn't get much attention." According to this perspective,
Christians who created such a table of contents for Antiquities would
included a reference to the TF, is such a reference existed.

It should first be noted that Feldman himself hardly finds this argument
conclusive, because he accepts the partial authenticity of the TF. In any event,
what really sinks this objection is that the table of contents was likely not
created by Christians, but by Josephus or one of his assistants. That Josephus
or one of his assistants would not see any point in highlighting what they spent
so little time recording is hardly surprising and in no way suggests that the TF
was absent.

Here is an English translation of the Table:

(i) How Quirinius was sent
by Caeser to make an assessment of Syria and Judaea and to liquidate the
estate of Archelaus.

(ii) How Coponius, a man of
equestrian rank, was sent to be procurator of Judaea.

(iii) How Judas the Galilean
persuaded the masses not to register their properties, until Joazar the high
priest induced them to give heed to the Romans.

(iv) What and how many were
the philosophical schools among the Jews and what rules they had.

(v) How Herod and Philip the
tetrarchs founded cities in honour of Caesar.

(vi) How the Samaritans
scattered bones of the dead in the temple and thus defiled the people for
seven days.

(vii) How Salome the sister
of Herod died leaving her estate to Julia the wife of Caesar.

(viii) How Pontius Pilate
sought secretly to introduce busts of Caesar into Jerusalem, and how the
people rose up against him and refused to permit it.

(ix) What happened to the
Jews in Rome about this time at the instigation of the Samaritans.

(x) The bringing of charges
against Pilate by the Samaritans before Vitellius, and how Vitellius compelled
him to proceed to Rome to render an account of his actions.

(xi) The war of Herod the
tetrarch with Aretas the king of the Arabians and Herod's defeat.

(xii) How Tiberius Caesar
sent instructions to Vitellius to induce Artabanes the Parthian to send
hostages to him and make war on Aretas.

(xiii) The death of Philip
and how his tetrarchy became provincial territory.

(xiv) The voyage of Agrippa
to Rome and how, after being accused by his own freedman, he was thrown into
chains.

(xv) How he was released by
Gaius after the death of Tiberius and became king of the tetrarchy of Philip.

(xvi) How Herod, upon making
a trip to Rome, was banished, and how Gaius presented his tetrarchy to
Agrippa.

(xvii) The civil strife of
the Jews and Greeks in Alexandria and the dispatch of delegates by both groups
to Gaius.

(xviii) The charges brought
against the Jews by Apion and his fellow delegates on the score of their
permitting no image of Caesar.

(xiv) How Gaius in his
resentment sent Petronius to Syria as governor to open hostilities against the
Jews if they did not agree to accept an image of him.

(xx) The disaster that
befell the Jews in Babylonia because of the brothers Asinaeus and Anilaeus.

This book covers a period of thirty two years.

During our debate on the TF, Kirby and I learned that the table of contents
was originally written in Greek before the sixth century. Thus, it is not a
sixth century Christian creation. Additionally, we learned that Professor
Thackeray had addressed the origins of the table of contents. According to
Thackeray, the author of the table of contents was likely a Jew and possibly one
of Josephus' assistants:

Josephus himself
incorporated a rough summary of the whole in his proem, and though it is
improbable that these more elaborate chapter headings are the product of his
pen, they may not be far removed from him in date.

Thackeray goes on to suggest that the summaries were written by one of
Josephus' assistants because "the phraseology occasionally suggests the hand of
one of the author's assistants." Ibid. Given that no scholar was or is
more familiar with the nuances of the style and linguistic characteristics of
Josephus' writings, this opinion is entitled to substantial respect.

Finally, the original table does not refer to any of the features that
would have interested Christians, such as John the Baptist, James the brother of
Jesus, or the death of Herod. Such omissions make sense for a Jewish author, but
not for a Christian one -- regardless of whether the TF existed. If Christians
had originally created the table, they would not have left out those features
which most interested them. The better explanation is that whoever created the
summaries, they were not Christian. Thus, no significance can be gleaned from
the fact that the table does not refer to the TF.

9. There are No References by Early Church Fathers to the TF Until
Eusebius

One of the most common objections to the partial authenticity theory is that
if the reconstructed TF was authentic, some Christian writer prior to Eusebius
would have mentioned it. Although this argument is not without appeal, upon
closer examination it fails to persuade. There simply is no reason to believe
that the early Christians would have found the TF much use to their writings.
Moreover, Roger Pearse has helpfully compiled all of the references to Josephus
by the early Church fathers (Pearse,
Josephus and
Anti-Nicene Fathers, 2001). There are surprisingly few -- only around a
dozen prior to Eusebius -- , showing that Josephus was not well known or often
used by the early Church fathers.

Meier offers this further argument:

One possible explanation of
this silence would jibe well with my reconstruction of the Testimonium and my
isolation of the Christian interpolations. If until shortly before the time of
Eusebius the Testimonium lacked the three Christian interpolations I have
bracketed, the Church Fathers would not have been overly eager to cite it; for
it hardly supports the mainline Christian belief in Jesus as the Son of God
who rose from the dead. This would explain why Origen in the 3d century
affirmed that Josephus did not believe Jesus to be the Messiah (Commentary on
Matthew 10.17; Contra Celsum 1.47). Origen's text of the Testimonium simply
testified, in Christian eyes, to Josephus' unbelief ‑‑ not exactly a useful
apologetical tool in addressing pagans or a useful polemical tool in
christological controversies among Christians.

(Meier, op. cit., page 79).

Earl Doherty has responded:

Meier's argument is that the
Christian Fathers would have recognized that Josephus did not accept Jesus as
the Messiah and Son of God, or believe that he had risen from the dead. The
Testimonium witnessed to Josephus' unbelief and was therefore avoided. But
should the apologists have found this disconcerting in a non‑Christian? They
dealt with unbelief every day, faced it head on, tried to counter and even win
over the opponent. Justin's major work, Dialogue with the Jew Trypho, did just
that. Origen, in his own confrontation with Celsus, did not shy away from
criticizing Josephus for attributing the fall of Jerusalem to God's punishment
on the Jews for the death of James, rather than for the death of Jesus (see
below). In fact, Origen refers to the very point which Meier suggests
Christian commentators shied away from, that Josephus did not believe in Jesus
as the Messiah. It hardly seems that the silence on Antiquities 18.3.3
by all the apologists prior to Eusebius can be explained in this way.

(Doherty, op. cit., page 209-10).

It appears that Doherty misses the central point. Meier does not pretend that
Josephus unbelief was frightening or "disconcerting." Rather, Josephus' unbelief
meant that the TF would have been of little use for their arguments. The only
question is whether they would have turned to the TF -- unredacted -- to promote
their apologies. Because Josephus denied Jesus was the Messiah, the apologetic
value for that time was not very great (if it existed at all).

Doherty also argues that Christians at least would have turned to the TF to
prove that Jesus did miracles. But this too is unpersuasive. Opponents of
Christianity apparently accepted that Jesus performed wondrous feats, but tended
to write them off as magic. This is exactly what Trypho the Jew did. He argued
that Jesus' miracles were a result of magic learned while he was in Egypt. Given
this situation, Josephus' neutral reference about Jesus' wonderful deeds would
avail them little. Indeed, as discussed above, because "parodoxa" can carry with
it a negative connotation -- "controversial deeds" -- use of the original TF may
very well have undercut the Christian's argument.

Jeffery Lowder's comment is on point:

Assuming that contemporary
reconstructions of the passage are accurate, it is difficult to imagine why
the early church fathers would have cited such a passage. The original text
probably did nothing more than establish the historical Jesus. Since we have
no evidence that the historicity of Jesus was questioned in the first
centuries, we should not be surprised that the passage was never quoted until
the fourth century.

An examination of three types of evidence reveals that Olson's theory is
unpersuasive. First, the internal evidence reveals distinctly, and sometimes
uniquely, Josephan language in parts of the TF. Olson's attempt to point to
uniquely Eusebian language is unavailing. Two of the phrases are arguably
Josephan. Second, Olson completely ignores the probable existence of
Antiquities manuscripts independent of Eusebius which also contain the TF.
The existence of such manuscripts is fatal to this theory. Third, Olson's more
important argument about Eusebius' apologetic purpose is entirely
unconvincing. Simply put, Eusebius never uses the TF as Olson's theory
predicts. In sum, Olson has failed to offer any serious reason to believe that
Eusebius interpolated the TF.

Once the evidence is in and partial authenticity seems the best explanation,
the spectre of the "brilliant interpolator" is usually raised. Far from being
established as factual, the "brilliant interpolator" tends to be a last ditch
attempt to save one's presumed opinion about the TF. Nevertheless, I will
discuss the many problems with the theory:

First, it is one of those theories that relies on the absence of evidence.
The less evidence there is of an interpolation, the more often people resort to
it and the stronger they believe the case to be. A theory that depends on a lack
of evidence is not all that persuasive.

Second, textual criticism was not a body of inquiry prior to the 18th
century. It is unlikely that an interpolator would even think it necessary to
select various phrases from all over Josephus' writings to mimic his style in
order to deceive 21st century sceptics.

Third, interpolators were more pious than professional. The whole purpose of
interpolating something was to say what the original author did not and probably
would not have said. This is shown by the Slavonic Josephus's obvious and
extensive additions, as well as the blatant Christian glosses in the TF ("he was
the Christ" and "if it indeed it is correct to call him a man").

Fourth, too many of the TF phrases that are Josephan are also terms that
Christians would have avoided (such as "wise man," "pleasure," "leading men,"
and "paradoxical deeds"). It would be self defeating to so mimic Josephus' style
that you had to imply inadequate, negative, and/or offensive statements and
attributes to Jesus.

Fifth, the "brilliant interpolator" would not have described Jesus merely as
a "wise man" only to have to add the clarification, "if indeed he can be called
a man." Nor would he have placed "he was the Christ" in such an awkward spot.

Sixth, the blatant Christian glosses count against a brilliant interpolator.
Someone trying to sound like Josephus would hardly make the obvious blunders
found in the TF that give away the game ("he was the Christ," if it indeed it is
correct to call him a man," and "he rose from the dead on the third day as
foretold by the prophets"). Of course, it could be argued that the original
interpolator's account was more neutral, and that later blundering scribes added
the obvious Christian glosses. But, as alluded to in point four, this would
defeat the purpose of the entire effort. What possible purpose could a Christian
have in interpolating such a neutral account about Jesus when no one was arguing
that he did not exist or denying that he was believed to have done some
impressive deeds? And why unnecessarily use terms that cast so much doubt on
your own creed? (such as the ambiguous term "paradoxa"). As noted by Professor
Vermes, "[i]t would be meaningless to invent a testimony that did not support
the belief of the interpolator." Vermes, op. cit., page 4.

Seventh, whatever linguistic similarities to Josephus (and dissimilarities to
his own creed) the brilliant interpolator may have managed, the theory fails to
explain other arguments favoring partial authenticity (no connection to John the
Baptist, the likelihood of a clarifying reference for the reference to James the
brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, the textual variants lacking one of the
main Christian glosses, and the lack of a Christian track record of such
wholesale inventions).

Conclusion

In summary, the case for partial authenticity is much stronger than the
evidence assessed against it. Indeed, given that most of the arguments against
partial authenticity are without merit, the complete interpolation theory seems
based mostly on the simplistic notion that because there was some tampering with
the text the entire TF must be a fabrication. By far, a preponderance of the
evidence is best explained by the conclusion that Josephus wrote a mostly
neutral account about Jesus that later Christians, finding the description
inadequate, enhanced with some alterations and at least one addition to the
text.

What Can We Learn About Jesus from Josephus?

How Would Josephus Have Learned About Jesus?

Having concluded that Josephus originally did refer to Jesus, would he have
been in a place to offer any reliable information about him? Yes. According to
leading New Testament scholar E.P. Sanders, "[b]y the standards of the day,
[Josephus] was a very good historian, and for some parts of his historical
narratives he had excellent sources." (Sanders, The Historical Figure of
Jesus, page 16). Moreover, having lived in Judaea and Galilee, Josephus
would have been in an excellent position to learn from Jewish sources about the
early Christians and Jesus. Indeed, according to Josephus' own writings, he was
in Jerusalem at the time that James the brother of Jesus was martyred.
Additionally, Josephus -- living as a member of the imperial family in Rome --
would have had unprecedented access to Roman records. That he obtained accurate
information about other religious sects, such as the Essenes, the Pharisees, and
the Sadducees, and a similar historical figure in John the Baptist, is
undisputed. That he had similar access to such traditions about Christians and
their founder is therefore also very likely.

But some argue that since Josephus likely learned about Jesus from
Christians, his evidence is worthless. There are too many problems with such an
accusation to take this charge seriously. Not the least of which is that, for
Jesus Mythologists like Doherty, that the only story Christians were telling
Josephus in the first century was of a historical Jesus would be very
troublesome indeed. In any event, there is no reason to believe Christians were
Josephus' source and good reasons to believe that they were not.

[T]hat explanation will not do. Firstly, the distinctively non-Christian
terminology we have noted suggests that Josephus is giving his own account.
Secondly, there is no reason whatever for Josephus to even mention Jesus and
Christianity at this point in his work at all unless he was convinced that the
career and execution of Jesus was an actual event which occurred during the
governorship of Pilatus. And thirdly, Josephus, a Jew who lived for much of
his life in Palestine, is in a very different situation from Tacitus to know
whether what he is told is true or not, and to have an interest in checking
what he is told. Nor does the rest of his work encourage us to believe that he
was in the habit of talking to Christians or using them as source of
information.

If then . . . Josephus did originally include an account of Jesus in his
record of the governorship of Pilatus, we have every reason to be confident
that he had his own good reasons for believing what he wrote to be true.

(France, op. cit., page 31).

Meier also points out that the notion that Christians are Josephus' source is
unlikely given that he seems to know much more about Jesus than he does about
Christians themselves. This is especially true if Meier is correct that the TF
did not include a reference to the resurrection:

Yet there is a problem with
supposing that Josephus used the oral reports of Christians as a direct
source. Strange to say, the Testimonium is much vaguer about the Christians
than it is about Jesus. If my reconstruction is correct, while the Testimonium
gives a fairly objective, brief account of Jesus' career, nothing is said
about Christian's belief that Jesus rose from the dead--and that after all,
was the central affirmation of faith that held the various Christian groups
together during the 1st century (cf. 1 Corinthians. 15:11). That Josephus drew
directly on oral statements of Christians and yet failed to mention the one
belief that differentiated them markedly from the wide range of Jewish beliefs
at the time seems difficult to accept. My sense is that, paradoxically,
Josephus seems to have known more about Jesus than he did about the Christians
who came after him.

(Meier, op. cit., page 67).

In addition to the above, I would stress how unlikely it would be that
Josephus would uncritically accept the word of a few members of a strange
off-shoot of Judaism if Josephus had heard nothing of Jesus or Christians while
he lived in Palestine for so many years. This is especially true of his
reference to Jesus' brother James, given that Josephus was in Jerusalem at the
time of James' martyrdom. Moreover, it is unreasonable to conclude that Josephus
would have so uncritically taken their word for so many things, but then
proceeded to repeat their account in such blatantly un-Christian language.
Accordingly, given that this theory has so little to commend it, it is best seen
as a last-ditch attempt to deny the historicity of Jesus (or at least the
confirmation it offers for many of the Gospel details) rather than a viable
historical alternative.

What Josephus Tells Us

What is the significance of Josephus' references to Jesus? Josephus provides
valuable, independent confirmation of the existence, life, and ministry of Jesus
of Nazareth. Leading scholar Luke T. Johnson offers the following opinion:

Stripped of its obvious
Christian accretions, the passage tells us a number of important things about
Jesus, from the perspective of a first-century Jewish historian . . . . Jesus
was both a teacher and a wonder-worker, that he got into trouble with some of
the leaders of the Jews, that he was executed under the prefect Pontius
Pilate, and that his followers continued to exist at the time of Josephus'
writing.

(Luke T. Johnson, The Real Jesus, pages 113-14).

F.F. Bruce breaks it down thus:

We have therefore very good
reason for believing that Josephus did make reference to Jesus, bearing
witness to (a) His date, (b) His reputation as a wonder-worker, (c) His being
the brother of James, (d) His crucifixion under Pilate at the information of
Jewish rulers, (e) His messianic claim, (f) His being the founder of the tribe
of Christians, and probably, (g) the belief in His rising from the dead.

(F.F. Bruce, op. cit., page 112).

In summary, Josephus confirms the accuracy of the Canonical Gospels (and
Acts) in the following recollections:

 The time frame that the Gospels place Jesus in,

 Jesus had a reputation for teaching wisdom,

 Jesus was believed to have performed miracles,

 Jesus had a brother named James,

 Some Jewish leaders were involved with Jesus' execution,

 Pilate was Prefect and had Jesus executed,

 Jesus was executed by crucifixion,

 Jesus was known as a messianic figure,

 Jesus was the founder of Christianity,

 Acts' portrayal of James as the leader of the Jerusalem Church is
confirmed,

 The existence of early Jewish persecution of Christians in Jerusalem, and,

 That the early Christians reported that Jesus was raised from the dead as
foretold by the Jewish prophets (based on Eisler's reconstruction and Mason's
comments on linguistic similarities).

Bibliography

Barnett, Paul Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity Downer's Grove,
1999